STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF SCOTT First National Bank of Montgomery, vs. Jerome Daly, IN JUSTICE COURT TOWNSHIP OF CREDIT RIVER MARTIN V. MAHONEY, JUSTICE Plaintifé, JUDGMENT AND DECREE Defendant. The above entitled action came on before the Court and a Jury of 12 on December 7,1968 at 10:00 A.M. Plaintiff appeared by its President’ Lawrence V. Morgan and was represented by its Counsel Theodore R, Mellby. Defendant appeared on his own behalf. A Jury of Talesmen were called, impanneled and sworn to try the issues in this Case. Lawrence V. Morgan was the only witness called for Plaintiff and Defendant testified as the only witness in his own behalf, Plaintiff brought this as a Common Law action for the recovery of the possession of Lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County,Minn, Plaintiff claimed title to the Real Property in question by foreclosure of a Note and Mortgage Deed dated May 8,1964 which Plaintiff claimed was in default at the time foreclosure proceedings were started. Defendant appeared and answered that the Plaintiff created the monev and credit nnon its awn hanke hi hanbanntnc: anteshis own behalf. Plaintiff brought this as a Common Law action for the recovery of the possession of Lot 19, Fairview Beach, Scott County,Minn. Plaintiff claimed title to the Real Property in question by foreclosure of a Note and Mortgage Deed dated May 8,1964 which Plaintiff claimea was in default at the time foreclosure proceedings were started. Defendant appeared and answered that the Plaintiff created the money and credit upon its own books by bookeeping-entry as the consideration’ for the Note and Mortgage of May #,1964 and alleged failure of consideration for the Mortgage Deed and alleged that the Sheriff's sale passed no title to Plaintiff. te The issues tried to the Jury were whether there was a lawful consideration and whether Defendant had waived his rights to complain about the consideration having paid on the Note for almost 3 years. Mr. Morgan admitted that all of the money or credit which was (Used ai’a consideration was created upon their books, that this was standard’ banking practice exercised by their bank in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, another private Bank, further that’ he knew of no United States Statute or Law that gave the Plaintiff the authority to do this. Plaintifé further claimed that Defendant by using the ledger book created credit and by paying‘on the Note and Mortgage waived ang’right to complain about the Consideration and that Defendant was estopped from doing so. At a2:i5ven December 7,1968 the Jury returned a unaminous verdict for the Defendant. Now therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota not inconsistent therewith; TT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: 1, That Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of Lot 19, Faizview Beach, Scott County, Minnesota according to the Plat thereof on file in the Register of Deeds office. 2, That because of failure of a lawful consideration the Note and Mortgage dated May 8,1964 are null and void. 3. That the Sheriff's sale of the above described premises held on June 26,1967 is null and void, of no effect. 4, That Plaintiff has no right, title or interest in said premises or lien thereon, as is above described. 5, That any provision in the Minnesota Constitution and. any Minnesota Statute limiting the Jurisdiction of this Court is repugnant3. That the Sheriff's sale of the above described premises held on June 26,1967 is null and void, of no effect. 4, That Plaintiff has no right, title or interest in said premises or lien thereon, as is above described. 5. That any provision in the Minnesota Constitution and. any Minnesota Statute limiting the Jurisdiction of this Court is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and to the Bill of Rights of the Minnesota Constitution and is null and void and that this Court has Jurisdiction to render complete Justice in this Cause. 6. That Defendant is awarded coats in the sum of $75.00 and execution is hereby issued therefore. 7. A 10 day stay is granted. 8. The following memorandum and any supplemental memorandum made and filed by this Court in support of this Judgment is hereby “Aly uy made a part hereof by reference. Dated December 9,1968 ‘JUSTICE OF THE PEACE CREDIT RIVER TOWNSHIP SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTAMEMORANDUM The issues in this case were simple. There was no material dispute on the facts for the Jury to resolve. Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Instutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire $14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8,1964 andthe Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existance when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Busch Brewing Co, v. Emma Mason, 44 Minn, 318, 46 N.W. 558. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can created something of value out of nothing.lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can created something of value out of nothing. Even if Defendant could be charged with waiver or,estoppel as a matter of Law this is no defense to the Plaintiff. The Law leaves wrongdoers where it finds them. See sections 50, 51 and 52 of Am gur 2a “Actions” on page, 584 -"no action will lie to recover on a claim based upon, or in any manner depending upon, a fraudulent, illegal, or immoral transaction or contract to which Plaintiff was’a party. Plaintiff's act of creating credit is not authorized by the Constitution and Laws of the United States, is unconstitutional and void, and is not a lawful consideration in the eyes of the Law to support any thing or upon which any lawful rights can be built. Nothing in the Constitution of the United States limits the Jurisdiction of this Court, which is one of original Jurisdiction with right of trial by Jury guaranteed. This is a Common Law Action. Minnesota cannot limit or impair the power of this Court to render Complete Justice between the parties. Any provisions in the Constitution and laws of Minnesota which attempt to do so aff repugnant to theConstitution of the United States and sé void. No question as to the Jurisdiction of this Court was raised by either party at the trial. Both parties were given complete liberty to submit any and all facts and law to the Jury, at least in so far as they saw fit. No complaint was made by Plaintiff that Plaintiff did not recieve a fair trial. Prom the admissions made by Mr. Morgan the path of duty was made direct and clear for the Jury, Their Verdict could not reasonably have been otherwise. Justice was rendered completely and without denial, promptly and without delay, ‘freely and without purchase, conformable to the laws in this is cee ae Decenbar be 71,1968. December 9,1968 Note: It has never been doubted tha¥ a Note given on a Consideration which is prohibited by law is void./It has been determined, independent of Acts of Congress, that sailing under the license of an enemy is illegal. The‘emmission of Bills of Credit upon the books of these private Corporations, for the purposes of private gain is not warranted by’ the Constitution of the United States and is unlawful. See Craig vsMo, 4 Peters Reports 912, This Court can tread only that path which is marked out by duty, © MVM. 6 na : : ea iL ut : san.COUNTY OF SCOTT TOWSHIP OF FASLA CRITK First National Sra af vontgosery, Minnesota, : Plaintify Jerome Daly, Defendant tr. That the defendant Le in possession of Lot 19, Fairview. Reach, racarted Plat therant? a file nd of record in the nftire i according wt? Of the Pasister af Meads in ant fer the ““unty of Seatt and State af vdnnae sota, antl was the orner in fae thereor at the time of the execution of tm sage hereinafter ment{oned, adr tr. That on tay f, 1964, defendant made and delivered te plaintift a mortgane of said promises to recure the payment of a promigsory note for Fourteen Thousand and no/huncredths (514,000.00) Dollars, then sade and delivered by defendant to plaintiff: that on Amrit 22, i467, ante aortcace was recorded in the office of the Ruiteter of Needs for syte i 4 \ County ae document #113751. un That thereafter, default having been nde in the jiayaent of the principal and interest of aaid note and oortgage, plaintiff duly torecinaed aisnaanibiaasaine anid mortgnce by advertisement under a pover therein, and duly causert te same to be ald by the Sheriff of saiz County at nublic auction on tune 7%, 1967, In conformity with the Statute in such case ande and provided; that at anid sate pialatiff wae the purchaser of ssid premises and aatd sheriff te of sasd sale as provider duly made and. delivered his official certiti by Minnesota Statutes 580.17: that on fulu 17, 1987, aafd c@rtificacs wan iad aanrecorded in the office of the Pogister of Deeds for sald County as ocuments #114393 and #114394, Ww. That more than one (1) vear has elapsed since that date and no redeuption has been aade therefrow and the tine for redemption there- from hae expired. v That by reason thereof and of the Statute In such case ande : and provided, plaintiff ts the owner in fee and entitled to the iaundiate salon of asid oreainen. poe ve That defendant withholds poseeanton thereof from plaintiff. titution of WHRREFORA, plaintlif demands tudgmant for the 1 id premlens and costs and disbursements. MOGUIRR & NRLLRV /af_ theodore P._ He Lib oy Theodore R. Meliby Attorney for Platorife Mentgowery, Minnescta 36969 Taler 364-7327STATE oF MINNESOTA TH MSTIC comet cnunty oF scoTT TIMNSHTP CF CREDIT OVER MARTIN V. MAHONEY, JUSTICE Firat National Aank of Montane ry, Plalorift ove Jerome naly, Defendant 1 Denies each and every alienation DMEPRPORF plaintiff ptave that Defendant take nothing he Kis nrorended Counterclaim and that olainvi¢? be awarded tudgoent anainat defestant pursuant to ite compinint Inclutinn attorneys fees, Interact, cnet] and disbursements. POGUT OR A MLLAY ay, Thendnre = Attorney for Flaine! tf Montoomery, cfeneaota S612 Tals (699) 164-7997STATE OF MINNESOTA TW JUSTICE COURT COUNTY OF SCOTT TORNSHITP OF CREDIT RIVER MARTIN Ve MAHONEY, SNISTICE Pirst National Bank of Montgovery, Plaintiff, Oe) vs. ANSWER AND COUNTFRCLATM Jerome Daly Defendant, Defendant, Jerome Daly, for his Answer and Counteretaim herein states and alleges: a Defendant denies penerally ench and every matter ond thing in Plaintiff's Complaint excent as is hereinafter alleged, ny Alleges that Defendant is now and hus beon at all times herein material the owner in fee of the nremises doserihad in the Complaint and now is in possession thereof, itt, Allasne that on or shout May R.1964 Nefendant made and delivered a nronitorAlleges that Defendant {s now and has beon at all timos herein material the ouner in fee of the nrenises deserthed In the Complaint and now is in possession thereof, mt, Alloges that on or shout May 8,1964 Defendant made and delivered a nronisory , note in the sum of $14,000.00 slong with « mortgage to-secure payment of the alleged note, hovever, Defendant alleges that said Note and Vartnare are void because said Note and Mortgage are not sunnorted hy any Iswful consideration nor did Defendant recieve anv lawful consideration for said Note and Nortpace, Ww Alleges specifier! ly that the Plaintiff, through {ts agents, created, unlawfully, by bookeeping entry upon the leper hooks of said Bank, the sun of $14,000,00 in money end credit by which It attemnted to give and grant as a Invful consideration for said Note of $14,000.00, That said activity by said Bank is unlawful, unconstitutional and void, vw ‘That the Federal Reserve Banking Act and the National Ranking Act,in so far as they are attempted legitiation by the Imited States authorizing Federe] Reserve and Netional Banks as Banking Corporations, is unconstitutional and void and not necessary and nroper for cerrying into execution the povers vested in the tintted States Gov, by the people, That on the contrary the said cornorations ‘are set un, maintained and perattted to exist as artifices, tricks md devices for the surpose of swindel, fraud, forgery and theft and also usury sné te further usurious practices, That all the foreoing whlmvful practices annly to plaintiff in this case : ve That PIninti fF is engaged with the Federal Pererve system of creatine umlawfully, money and credit by hookeepinn entry unon its books as it did in this case, al) of which iz unconstitutfonal and void in violation of lave relating to forgery and usury. vit. That said Kote dated on or about "ay 6, 1964 is all without Jawfol conifderetion and ts vold. VIII, that the recording of said Mortgage and the Sheriff's sale constitutes nafendant 's slander of title of Riakexiffts property. Wherefore, Pefendant demands Judgrent as follows: 1, That Defendant be adjudged not guilty, with Judgment entered for Dorendant to that effect, together with Costs taxed against Plaknt lf and that an execution issue therefore, 2, That the said $14,090,00 Nee be declared null and void as not founded upon a lawful oonsideration, 3, That said Morapage ond Sheriff's Sale be likewise declared null and void as not founded umon a lawful consideration. Ay That Plaintiff has no right, title or interest in said nromiaes er Tien thereon, S, That Plaintiff is not entitled te recover the nessession of the premises described in the Comlnint, Novenber 30,1968STATE OF. MINNESOTA IN JUSTICE COURT COUNTY OF SCOTT TONNSIITP OF CREDIT RIVER MARTIN V. MAHONEY, JUSTICE First National Bank of Montgonery, Plaintiff, vs, ANSMER AND COUNTERCLAIM Jerome Daly : Defendant, Defendant, Jerome Daly, for his Answer and Counterciain herein states and alleges: in Defendant denies generally each and every uatter and thing in Paintiffts Complaint oxcept as 1s hereinafter alleged, : m Alleges that Defendant {s nov and has been at all times herein material the omer In fee of the premises doseribed {n the Complaint and nov fs inAlleges that Defendent is now and has been at all ties herein metorial the owner in fee of the premises described in the Complaint and now is in possession ther: mt, Alleges that on or sbout Hay 8,1964 Defendant made and delivered a nronisory note in the sim of $14,000.00 along with « mortgage to secure payment of note, hovever, Defendant alleges that said Note and Morte: are void because sald Note and Mortgage are not supported by any lawful consideration nor did Defendant recieve any Imful consideration for said Note and Hortpage. wm Alleges specifically that the Plaintiff, through its agents, created, unlecfully, by bockesping entry upon the Jeger books of said Bank, the sun of $14,000.00 in woney snd credit by which ft attempted to give and grant as 4 levful consideration for said Mote of $14,000.00, That satd activity by seid Bank is unlawful, unconstitutional and void, 7 ve ‘That the Federa) Reserve Banking Act and the National Banking Act,in so far a2 thoy are attempted logistation by tho United States authorizing Pederal Reserve and Nationa! Banks as Banking Corporations, 1s unconstitutional and vold and not necessory and proper for carrying into execution the povers vested tn the United States Gov, by the people, That on the contrary the seid comorationsare set up, maintained and permitted to exist as artifices, tricks and devices for the purpose of swindel, fraud, forgery and theft and also usury and to further usurious practices, That all the foregoing uflewful practices apply to plaintiff in this case, VI, That Plaintiff ts engaged with the Federal Reserve systen of creating unlawfully, money and credit by bookeeping entry upon its hooks as it did in this case, all of which is unconstitutional and void in violation of laws relating to forgery and usury, VII, That said Note dated on or about May &,1964 is all without lawful condideration and is void, vit, : That the recording of said Mortgage and the Sheriff's sale constitutes Defendant's slander of title of Riatnttffts property, Wherefore, Defendant demands Nedgwent an follows: 1, That Defondant be adjudged not guilty, with Judgment entered for Defendant to that effect, together with Costs taxed against Plaintiff and that an execution issue therefore, ‘That the said $14,000.00 Noe be declared null and void as not founded upon a lawful Sasi Get ei: 3, That sald Morggage and Sheriff's Sale be likewise declared null and vold as not founded uoon # lawful consideration, 4, That Plaintiff has no right, title or interest in said premises or lien thereon, ete aly Mawamhar th tase